Apps Amazon Instant Video

[spinningblade]

There are basically two types of people who want an Amazon Instant Video app on ATV4. The first group wants to be able to rent and purchase movies and TV shows on Amazon directly from the Apple TV app. The second group wants to be able to just stream free movies or previously purchased/rented (via a web browser) movies on the app.

Creating a full-fledged Amazon Video app on ATV4 would not be economically smart for Amazon to do since they have to pay Apple a big chunk of every rental or purchase done in-app. They could theoretically just port over their iOS app which only allows streaming of free movies but no in-app purchasing. HOWEVER, denying BOTH types of Amazon Video customers access to types of things they want an Amazon Video app for, the demand for the app is twice as much. And thus, they hope this demand generates pressure for Apple to remove the 30% in-app rental fee or significantly reduce it.

But, Apple may not be up for bargaining on the in-app fee. Plus, all the Amazon Instant Video renters/purchasers would have no other choice but to rent from iTunes Movie store if they want to rent a movie on the Apple TV. So Apple might not care about the customer demand for an Amazon Instant Video app. They certainly didn't care when customers were hoping for blu-ray drives to be introduced into Macs. (Blu-ray drives have been out for 8 years and still Apple has not include one with any of it's computers and most likely never will)

I see the only way Amazon Video getting an ATV4 app is if Apple notices that sales of the Apple TV have plummeted due the device not being sold on amazon.com. (which is where most of the Apple TV online sales came from - far more than even Apple's own online store) If ATV sales are hurting so much that Apple needs amazon.com to start selling them again, I can see them removing the 30% in-app fee. (which would then result in amazon releasing an ATV4 app)

This whole thing feels like one big game of chess.

 

[Gasu E.]

Yep, sucks to see this. Amazon and Apple are, IMOHO, at the pinnacle of customer service. really, both companies have always been a dream to deal with. it's unfortunate that they seem to get along like oil and water.

Amazon's strategy seems to be to try to anticipate every possible customer desire, so they can automate it, and remove the need for a human. And they are good at it.

 

[TrueBlou]

There are basically two types of people who want an Amazon Instant Video app on ATV4. The first group wants to be able to rent and purchase movies and TV shows on Amazon directly from the Apple TV app. The second group wants to be able to just stream free movies or previously purchased/rented (via a web browser) movies on the app.

Creating a full-fledged Amazon Video app on ATV4 would not be economically smart for Amazon to do since they have to pay Apple a big chunk of every rental or purchase done in-app. They could theoretically just port over their iOS app which only allows streaming of free movies but no in-app purchasing. HOWEVER, denying BOTH types of Amazon Video customers access to types of things they want an Amazon Video app for, the demand for the app is twice as much. And thus, they hope this demand generates pressure for Apple to remove the 30% or significantly reduce it.

But, Apple may not be up for bargaining on the in-app fee. Plus, all the Amazon Instant Video renters/purchasers would have no other choice but to rent from iTunes Movie store if they want to rent a movie on the Apple TV. So Apple might not care about the customer demand for an Amazon Instant Video app. They certainly didn't care when customers were hoping for blu-ray drives to be introduced into Macs. (Blu-ray drives have been out for 8 years and still Apple has not include one with any of it's computers and most likely never will)

I see the only way Amazon Video getting an ATV4 app is if Apple notices that sales of the Apple TV have plummeted due the device not being sold on amazon.com. (which is where most of the Apple TV online sales came from - far more than even Apple's own online store) If ATV sales are hurting so much that Apple needs amazon.com to start selling them again, I can see them removing the 30% in-app fee. (which would then result in amazon releasing an ATV4 app)

This whole thing feels like one big game of chess.

Apple has a massive worldwide brick & mortar retail network of their own. They have their own internet sales and they have pretty much every other retailer stocking their products. I don't think they'll be crying over losing Amazon as a distributor.

Amazon could easily bypass the 30% cut from Apple, Prime subscribers need not go anywhere near Apple for a subscription. That Amazon choose not to is purely a strategic decision.

Frankly Amazons behaviour in this matter regarding both Apple and Google products is outlandish. They don't want to sell them, fine, take your ball and go elsewhere. But to prevent others from selling those products is a terrible business practice that should not be supported. They are directly affecting the sales of much smaller companies and independents who need those products far more than Amazon does.

But Amazon certainly succeeded in their target as far as I'm concerned, their disgraceful attitude towards their customer base and the smaller retailers who depend on an Amazon storefront has most definitely succeeded in bringing clarity to me regarding their products. End result, one Apple TV, one cancelled Prime subscription and one new Netflix subscription. I can live without Amazon as easily as they can live without the Apple TV and Chromecast.

 

[Rigby]

Amazon could easily bypass the 30% cut from Apple, Prime subscribers need not go anywhere near Apple for a subscription. That Amazon choose not to is purely a strategic decision.

Likewise, Apple could easily do what everybody else does and make its iTunes content available on the "neutral" platform (Roku). That way consumers would have a choice rather than being locked in and needing 2-3 streaming boxes.

Frankly Amazons behaviour in this matter regarding both Apple and Google products is outlandish. They don't want to sell them, fine, take your ball and go elsewhere. But to prevent others from selling those products is a terrible business practice that should not be supported. They are directly affecting the sales of much smaller companies and independents who need those products far more than Amazon does.

It's their storefront and they decide what is being sold. Those little guys probably wouldn't have a business at all without Amazon. They'll survive the loss of a single product of only moderate popularity.

End result, one Apple TV, one cancelled Prime subscription and one new Netflix subscription. I can live without Amazon as easily as they can live without the Apple TV and Chromecast.

Well, I can't, especially now that I get free same-day shipping for many products with my Prime subscription.

 

[TrueBlou]

It's their storefront and they decide what is being sold. Those little guys probably wouldn't have a business at all without Amazon. They'll survive the loss of a single product of only moderate popularity.

It is indeed their store, but their stance is severely flawed. They don't want confusion of devices that aren't compatible with their services. Ok, but do a search on Amazon for network media players and you will find pages of devices not compatible with their services. When they get rid of all of those as well, I'll admit it's not just biased marketing tactics.

Well, I can't, especially now that I get free same-day shipping for many products with my Prime subscription.

Fortunately there are alternatives to this, going to a store and buying something springs to mind. We don't get same day shipping here so no great loss there and there are a plethora of companies who will ship next day for free, without having to pay a subscription. But each to their own. Amazon has been an almost constant disappointment to me for the best part of a year, I had all but stopped ordering from them months ago anyway, having found more reliable alternatives.

 

[Rigby]

It is indeed their store, but their stance is severely flawed.

They don't want confusion of devices that aren't compatible with their services. Ok, but do a search on Amazon for network media players and you will find pages of devices not compatible with their services. When they get rid of all of those as well, I'll admit it's not just biased marketing tactics.

It's no more "flawed" or "biased" than, say, Apple not selling competing products in its own stores.

Fortunately there are alternatives to this, going to a store and buying something springs to mind.

I'd actually like to buy certain products more locally, but unfortunately there are many things that I simply can't find anywhere anymore (and I don't live somewhere in the boonies but in the SF Bay Area).

We don't get same day shipping here so no great loss there and there are a plethora of companies who will ship next day for free, without having to pay a subscription.

Really? Who has free one-day shipping?

Anyway, same-day shipping is a whole new experience. Order before noon and it magically appears on your doorstep a few hours later. Fantastic time-saver.

 

[TrueBlou]

It's no more "flawed" or "biased" than, say, Apple not selling competing products in its own stores.

Apple is not however a general retailer but a store dedicated to Apple products. You'd have a hard time purchasing a toaster from an Apple Store. Nor are they stopping other retailers from making a profit, because they don't accommodate other retailers in any of their retail presences.

I'd actually like to buy certain products more locally, but unfortunately there are many things that I simply can't find anywhere anymore (and I don't live somewhere in the boonies but in the SF Bay Area).

I guess that's down to individual needs, there are few things I need which can't find locally. I don't think I've purchased anything for quite some time that I couldn't have gone to a local store to buy if I had wanted to.

Really? Who has free one-day shipping?

Anyway, same-day shipping is a whole new experience. Order before noon and it magically appears on your doorstep a few hours later. Fantastic time-saver.

I can't speak for America, but here in the UK there are many retailers who offer free next day shipping, some of them require it to be above a certain amount, which is normally quite low. Some have no minimum order value.

For instance today I'm awaiting the arrival of the iPad Mini 4 I've bought my wife for a surprise christmas gift, It's getting delivered for free from a company called Carphone Warehouse. There are electrical retailers, clothing retailers, hardware retailers, grocery stores and so on, and so on. There's no shortage of places to get what you need with free next day delivery. Even Apple will ship next day free if your order is above £50. Where I live, some of our local stores are even quite happy to deliver items the same day for free, naturally that's a smaller subsection, with a smaller range of products, but I guess it depends what you need as to how useful that is.

I've never been so desperate for an Internet purchase that I couldn't wait overnight. If I really needed something same day and couldn't get off my ass and leave wherever I was, there's several of the big retailers here that will deliver same day for a small fee, if the small local ones don't have what I need. Considering how infrequently I'd use such a thing it would be significantly less expensive than an Amazon Prime membership.

But like I said, to each his own. Thankfully we are not all the same, the world would be a nightmarish place if we were.

 

[Rigby]

Apple is not however a general retailer but a store dedicated to Apple products. You'd have a hard time purchasing a toaster from an Apple Store. Nor are they stopping other retailers from making a profit, because they don't accommodate other retailers in any of their retail presences.

Conversely, they are not offering other retailers business opportunities in the first place like Amazon does. You are not going to convince me that Amazon is behaving any less "ethical" than Apple. This is nothing but fanboy bias.

I can't speak for America, but here in the UK there are many retailers who offer free next day shipping, some of them require it to be above a certain amount, which is normally quite low.

Didn't realize you were in the UK. Free next-day delivery is unusual in the US. This might be related to the slight difference in geographical size.

 

[TrueBlou]

Conversely, they are not offering other retailers business opportunities in the first place like Amazon does. You are not going to convince me that Amazon is behaving any less "ethical" than Apple. This is nothing but fanboy bias.
Didn't realize you were in the UK. Free next-day delivery is unusual in the US. This might be related to the slight difference in geographical size.

Yes, I'm riddled with fanboy bias, considering I also own a Fire TV (albeit not for long now as it's become redundant.) and a Windows 10 Tablet amongst other things. I like technology, I don't really care who makes it so long as it's good.


I don't really blame places for not offering free delivery on the states, as you say, with the size of the place shipping must cost a heck of a lot more.

 

[netnothing]

Best decision Amazon ever did was bundle the free shipping with the other stuff like Prime Music/Video. Honestly I don't see people ever paying for Prime unless there is the shipping benefit. The library is just not good compared to other services. They are trying hard with some original shows - but to me they aren't worth $99/yr on their own yet.

I really think if the ATV4 takes off, Amazon will have no choice but to put an app on. There are potentially too many good things people will want to choose the ATV over anything Amazon (apps, Apple Music, iCloud stuff). That's if the device really takes off.

I really wish all the movie studios would just man up like Disney and do what they did. Let you buy from anywhere and watch from anywhere.

-Kevin

 

[Snoopy4]

Apple has a massive worldwide brick & mortar retail network of their own. They have their own internet sales and they have pretty much every other retailer stocking their products. I don't think they'll be crying over losing Amazon as a distributor.

Amazon could easily bypass the 30% cut from Apple, Prime subscribers need not go anywhere near Apple for a subscription. That Amazon choose not to is purely a strategic decision.

Frankly Amazons behaviour in this matter regarding both Apple and Google products is outlandish. They don't want to sell them, fine, take your ball and go elsewhere. But to prevent others from selling those products is a terrible business practice that should not be supported. They are directly affecting the sales of much smaller companies and independents who need those products far more than Amazon does.

But Amazon certainly succeeded in their target as far as I'm concerned, their disgraceful attitude towards their customer base and the smaller retailers who depend on an Amazon storefront has most definitely succeeded in bringing clarity to me regarding their products. End result, one Apple TV, one cancelled Prime subscription and one new Netflix subscription. I can live without Amazon as easily as they can live without the Apple TV and Chromecast.

You're claim is that Amazons behavior is outlandish, but Apple is doing exactly the same thing. Let us know when Apple develops an iTunes app for Android devices. I'll promptly dump my expensive iPad, iPhone and ecosystem limited AppleTV so I can not only access my iTunes content, but also my Amazon and UVVU content all from one place.

 

[TrueBlou]

You're claim is that Amazons behavior is outlandish, but Apple is doing exactly the same thing. Let us know when Apple develops an iTunes app for Android devices. I'll promptly dump my expensive iPad, iPhone and ecosystem limited AppleTV so I can not only access my iTunes content, but also my Amazon and UVVU content all from one place.

Except of course you're handily sidestepping the fact that Amazon is a general retailer and retail space provider. Whereas Apple is a company who has always made their own hardware, software and accessories exclusively for their own products.

They build retail outlets, exclusively for products made by Apple and select third parties who manufacture items to be used with Apple products. Their website reflects that as well, you'd have a hard time purchasing a toaster from Apple, nor do they provide storefronts for other companies. To suggest that Apple should provide products and services they make themselves, exclusively for their own use, well you might as well say Microsoft should be making Halo games for the PlayStation. It's chalk and cheese.

I have no issue with Amazon not bringing their streaming content to an Apple device. Couldn't care less about that at all, there are alternatives to everything Amazon provides. I just don't particularly agree with them banning anyone from selling a particular product on their website for strategic reasons.

It's for no other reason, as I've mentioned before, you don't have to look far on Amazon to find streaming media players which don't work with Amazon services, yet those continue to be sold while Apple and Google products are prohibited to be sold by anyone. So Amazons official statement on confusing customers is completely bogus. If that really was the case, then they should be preventing the sale of all incompatible devices. Not just those of their two biggest competitors.

At the end of the day I don't care who makes what and for whom. I use hardware and software products from a wide variety of companies. I've no brand loyalty, I just buy what's good and what I like.

I don't however like to give my money to a company who is preventing people from making money to run a business and support their families, just because they are scared of their competition. It may well be Amazons website and infrastructure these small companies are using but that shouldn't give them dictatorship over how and what an independent sells because it benefits them. It's not fair to the small companies and that's what I don't like and don't want to support. So I won't, that's my choice. Everyone else is free to do whatever they like.

 

[BJMRamage]

I get TrueBlou's responses.

Amazon is a Marketplace to buy "anything" from. *sure, now Amazon is also a manufacturer of hardware devices.*
Apple is a Hardware manufacturer and sells their stuff and not "much" of the competitors' stuff in their stores.

Imagine Amazon as Walmart. Walmart is backing the UV consortium. They sell movies with instawatch on them to get you an extra copy of UV movies but they still sell some movies that have iTunes Codes (last time I checked).

Also, is it confusing when you want to buy a cable for an Amazon Phone/Tablet and see so many Lightning cables? shouldn't they get rid of those and Apple Accessories? so as not to confuse their customer.

I think this is Amazon's way of pushing their devices. The Amazon phone was a flop and their kindles are decent and they want the Fire TV to take off. I understand why they are doing it and it makes sense. I still don't like it. and I will probably drop Prime next year (I bought it in September) it seems like there was plenty of stuff for Prime before i bought into it and now that I have it, I notice a lot that is NOT PRIME.

All that said, if there was a Prime App on the new AppleTV I might keep Prime. as it stands it is a "hassle" to Airplay the content when it could easily be a first-hand app on the AppleTV. That hindrance is something I don't care for.

 

[Rigby]

I think this is Amazon's way of pushing their devices.

Even if that were the case, would it be any less legitimate than Apple pushing its devices by keeping iTunes content exclusive to its own hardware? Apple is in fact the only major online video store that does not allow playback on other devices than its own.

But no, Amazon is not doing this to push their devices, otherwise they wouldn't be on one of the direct competitors of the Fire TV (the Roku) and numerous other devices such as smart TVs and Blu-ray players. They are doing this because Apple won't allow them to put the full Amazon video store experience on the Apple TV without extracting 30% of the revenue (the same goes for Google's devices).

 

[StarShot]

So apparently there are no plans for Amazon to come out with their Instant Video service for the new AppleTV. I can not in the world understand why would they do this? It would do nothing but benefit them to support the new service.

I suspect the problem is from the Apple side. MOST of the good content available via ATV is a paid service. IF Apple were to allow Amazon Instant video, since most of it is free IF you have a Prime account, it would reduce usage of Apple's PAID videos (movies, TV, etc).

My Samsung smart TV has a Amazon link so I'm good to go. And there is the awful option to run Amazon Video from a Apple device that supports AirPlay. I have a hard wire ethernet (80Mbps) plugged into my ATV4 whereas if I were to use AirPlay, I would be getting much slower throughput. Just to see how that worked, I hooked it up today and it was SLOW and cumbersome.

IF Amazon were to spread some of the Amazon Prime revenue with Apple, you might see a Amazon app in a NY minute.

 

[codelode84]

I switched. My Fire Stick works just as well as my ATV3 did and supports all the same services for a third of the price.

Last I check it doesn't support all the same services.

 

[codelode84]

I suspect the problem is from the Apple side. MOST of the good content available via ATV is a paid service. IF Apple were to allow Amazon Instant video, since most of it is free IF you have a Prime account, it would reduce usage of Apple's PAID videos (movies, TV, etc).

My Samsung smart TV has a Amazon link so I'm good to go. And there is the awful option to run Amazon Video from a Apple device that supports AirPlay. I have a hard wire ethernet (80Mbps) plugged into my ATV4 whereas if I were to use AirPlay, I would be getting much slower throughput. Just to see how that worked, I hooked it up today and it was SLOW and cumbersome.

IF Amazon were to spread some of the Amazon Prime revenue with Apple, you might see a Amazon app in a NY minute.

This is not true in my opinion. Is Apple getting a kickback from my satellite provider that is giving me access to most of the content on my Apple TV?

 

[StarShot]

This is not true in my opinion. Is Apple getting a kickback from my satellite provider that is giving me access to most of the content on my Apple TV?

Why wouldn't sites like HBO, SHO, etc pay Apple a couple of nickels? Amazon Google gets lots of pennies and nickels every time you go to one of their links. I wouldn't call it kickback. How about an "access fee"? Just business...

 

[codelode84]

HBO and Showtime do pay money to Apple when they subscribe through iTunes. The same as HBO and Showtime pay money to Dish Network when they subscribe through their services. But I would be very surprised if HBO and Showtime were paying anything for their apps that were provided on Apple TV based on availability through cable or satellite provider.

Think of it this way is Plex paying anything to apple to be available in the Apple store?

 

[StarShot]

HBO and Showtime do pay money to Apple when they subscribe through iTunes. The same as HBO and Showtime pay money to Dish Network when they subscribe through their services. But I would be very surprised if HBO and Showtime were paying anything for their apps that were provided on Apple TV based on availability through cable or satellite provider.

I thought all apps were designed/paid for by the utility that the app supports. Very few apps cost $10, but if one of them did, Apple got $3 of it. I also know there's no free lunch. If Apple didn't get anything from a fee app such as HBO, the only gain for them is to hope they sell a lot of hardware (ATV) and make their nickels there. I know they've made money from me as I've had them all, including the original HD model. And a few days ago, I bought the latest model.

For me, the new ATV will be complete when an Amazon Prime app is included. In the meantime, I'll just use the Amazon Prime app that is included in my Samsung Smart TV.

 

[garya73]

There's nothing stopping Amazon from submitting a gimped app that prevents any type of purchases, and there wouldn't be a good reason for Apple to reject such an app. There are plenty of other ATV apps that don't generate any revenue for Apple. And the app wouldn't have to be that much different than the iOS version.

Maybe they have an agreement not to play in each others sandboxes. Apple won't get an iTunes app on any Amazon Fire TV units and Amazon won't get an app on Apple TV.

 

[TrueBlou]

Even if that were the case, would it be any less legitimate than Apple pushing its devices by keeping iTunes content exclusive to its own hardware? Apple is in fact the only major online video store that does not allow playback on other devices than its own.

But no, Amazon is not doing this to push their devices, otherwise they wouldn't be on one of the direct competitors of the Fire TV (the Roku) and numerous other devices such as smart TVs and Blu-ray players. They are doing this because Apple won't allow them to put the full Amazon video store experience on the Apple TV without extracting 30% of the revenue (the same goes for Google's devices).

That's not fair reasoning though. Amazon can bypass the 30% cut by not offering in-app subscription. Or they could do what others do and increase the in-app subscription by 30% to cover the cost.

I'm one of those who think Apple are quite right to take 30% and deservingly so, they are providing the customer base. I wouldn't be a Netflix subscriber if it wasn't for the Apple TV. So they get a customer they wouldn't otherwise have had.

When I sell an app on the AppStore it's because Apple has provided me with the opportunity to do so, I'm perfectly happy for them to take their share. If I were making software to sell in a traditional store, I would have to provide them with it at a discounted cost so that they could apply their markup.

Do you think Amazon doesn't take a cut from the sellers who use an Amazon storefront to sell their items? They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts that's for sure.

It's the same for Apple, they are providing the same opportunity as Amazon does to the company's who sell on Amazon storefronts. A place to sell and an existing customer base to sell to. That's how the retail market has worked for centuries, the retailer always gets their markup, it's how they stay in business.

 

[BMox81]

I think the main thing for me that makes this dodgy is that if Amazon are taking this stance with the Apple TV, why aren't they doing the same with all the iPads that I see for sale everyday on their site?

Surely they would eat into the sales of the Amazon Fire tablets no....

 

[Snoopy4]

Except of course you're handily sidestepping the fact that Amazon is a general retailer and retail space provider. Whereas Apple is a company who has always made their own hardware, software and accessories exclusively for their own products.

I'm sidestepping nothing. In terms of digital media, Amazon and Apple are the same. They are both protecting their ecosystems by offering products with controlled ecosystem access.

To suggest that Apple should provide products and services they make themselves...

When it comes to ecosystem protection, this is exactly what Apple does.

I just don't particularly agree with them banning anyone from selling a particular product on their website for strategic reasons.

Let me know when I can pick up an Amazon Fire product at an Apple Store.

It's for no other reason, as I've mentioned before, you don't have to look far on Amazon to find streaming media players which don't work with Amazon services, yet those continue to be sold while Apple and Google products are prohibited to be sold by anyone.

So Apple can protect their digital ecosystem all they want, but Amazon cannot? You're quick to blame Amazon, yet Amazon works on pretty much every streaming device except AppleTV.

At the end of the day I don't care who makes what and for whom. I use hardware and software products from a wide variety of companies. I've no brand loyalty, I just buy what's good and what I like.

Apparently you do or you wouldn't have made the charge you did.

I don't however like to give my money to a company who is preventing people from making money to run a business and support their families, just because they are scared of their competition. It may well be Amazons website and infrastructure these small companies are using but that shouldn't give them dictatorship over how and what an independent sells because it benefits them. It's not fair to the small companies and that's what I don't like and don't want to support. So I won't, that's my choice. Everyone else is free to do whatever they like.

So a store can't decide what it wants to sell? I think you have some other issue you aren't disclosing and simply don't like Amazon.

Amazon is a Marketplace to buy "anything" from. *sure, now Amazon is also a manufacturer of hardware devices.*
Apple is a Hardware manufacturer and sells their stuff and not "much" of the competitors' stuff in their stores.

Amazon is also an ecosystem provider. They, like Apple, sell products designed to access said ecosystem.

I suspect the problem is from the Apple side. MOST of the good content available via ATV is a paid service. IF Apple were to allow Amazon Instant video, since most of it is free IF you have a Prime account, it would reduce usage of Apple's PAID videos (movies, TV, etc).

Apple is picking winners and losers. The only logical occurance is that Amazon wanted to develop an app that would fully integrate with AppleTV including the cross app search and allow purchases and that Apple said, no, you can have a player. Amazon responds, fine, we're not carrying your ecosystem protecting product. No other conclusion makes sense in any way shape or form.

Even if that were the case, would it be any less legitimate than Apple pushing its devices by keeping iTunes content exclusive to its own hardware? Apple is in fact the only major online video store that does not allow playback on other devices than its own.

Exactly.

Likewise, Apple could easily do what everybody else does and make its iTunes content available on the "neutral" platform (Roku). T

Not holding my breathe. I'd buy an Xbox One or PS4 tomorrow if they did.

I think the main thing for me that makes this dodgy is that if Amazon are taking this stance with the Apple TV, why aren't they doing the same with all the iPads that I see for sale everyday on their site?

Because there's an app for that.

 

[Rigby]

That's not fair reasoning though. Amazon can bypass the 30% cut by not offering in-app subscription. Or they could do what others do and increase the in-app subscription by 30% to cover the cost.

Which would make them completely uncompetitive of course.

I'm one of those who think Apple are quite right to take 30% and deservingly so, they are providing the customer base. I wouldn't be a Netflix subscriber if it wasn't for the Apple TV.

Netflix doesn't pay 30%. Apple gave some of the streaming providers a sweetheart deal. Taking 30% for content sold through an app (not the app itself) on an ongoing basis is outrageous and Apple knows it.

Do you think Amazon doesn't take a cut from the sellers who use an Amazon storefront to sell their items?

Of course they do, but it's nowhere near 30%.